Welcome to Gaia! ::

((this was the best i could do for a M1 Garand))

this is the M1 Garand.... with the mag going in from the top it provided a tactical advantage of less jamming....... its mane use in the American Campain was as either a rifle supportmen or a sniper... the M1 Garand was given to all common soldiers.... it also took place in one of the bloodiest battles... D-Day.... some of them were equiped with scopes to snipe the machine bastards...

Well you are right about one thing, though. He is an idiot and a bad teacher. whee

I mean the MP-40 was used by "Unexperianced Troops?". eek

There weren't enough Mp-40's to go around at the time to even fuel the entire SS, whom were basically their Special Forces. It was used by frontline troops who were invading CITIES that needed good CQB weapons (I.E. submachineguns) and many of them wished they had some, becuase it was an automatic high cap weapon instead of a bolt action piece of s**t many of the other units used. Which is why you see a lot of units with automatic pistols or "Lugers" becuase they basically fired the same dang thing, but when the enemy got too close and your bolt action was s**t you'd pull out your Machine-pistol or, your Mp 40, also a machine pistol.

As well, a need for an "Automatic Rifle" and their mentality for a better, widespread CQB weapons gave rise to the first Assault Rifle, ever, which also was a Special Forces weapon that ended up being really good and influencing most modern weapon choices to date. So his History lessons do suck. xp

I mean both the MP-40 and StG 44 were NOVEL weapons at the time issued to front line, very experienced city raiding troops who needed good CQB weapons that could deliver, relatively accurate, strong firepower quickly.



As well, top fed weapons DON'T have a tactical advantage. The M1 garand actually sucked becuase you couldn't add extra rounds in the clip and after it was done firing it would make a revealing "ping" that gave you away, and let everyone in a 300 meter earshot know you were out of ammo; actually a tactic was to shoot a few rounds and then throw one of the clips on the round to make it go "ping" and then when the guy popped his head up he would shoot him. The reason why the M1 Garand pwned all the other weapons is actually becuase, simply, it was the most advanced weapon at the time- we used the British round, based our initial design off of the Mauser and then got a genius to make the weapon semi-automatic. The tactical advantage was an 8 round clip (on the Mauser type round it was 10) over a 5 round clip, and semi-auto over bolt action with relatively the same accuracy, and a round with superior close range ballistics (most fights occurred 100-300 meters away, making 1000 yard shots, completely possible from both muasers and bolt action .30-06 11.2 gram .30-06 British sniper rifles, less useful; in which the .30-06 in the M1 used 9.7 gram rounds with a higher initial velocity but drastically lowered terminal ballistics). Had the Germans had the StG 45 before the M1 Garand, which the StG 45 was designed up to combat the M1 Garand having a higher magazine cap size and being capable of being fully automatic, it would have been a much tougher battle. Of course, Hitler originally dismayed the weapon which gave birth to it's controversy and trouble in creation. The Natzi's had a weapon that could beat ours, but not in enough numbers and it was so far into the war that it didn't really matter at that point.

We also had a Thompson sub-machine gun, which, for the time period, was basically the same as an StG 45 in application. The M1 is great, but it has many design flaws- and loading from the TOP interferes with the magazine size, the bolt, and of course, the sights (iron or scope). A 12 inch magazine jutting out the top of your weapon is hard to see over. xp

Well, the Americans were stupid, to say the least. But it was semiautomatic and had a higher clip size. In ranges of say, 1-400 meters, you could be just as accurate in hitting something the same size of a head at a much quicker firing rate.

Compare a guy in a fight with a manual operated pistol and a semi-auto pistol. When all you have to do is pull the trigger it's just "BOOM BOOM BOOM" doesn't matter if the first two hit. With a manual pistol, you have to c**k after each shot, and compared to a semi-auto, tactically at close range, it's just as good as having one.

Really, the M1 mixed with the Thompson mixed with the other combination of weapons, and all of that combined with the extensive amount of time and late entry into the war (more resources, less fatigue, large amounts of political support) is what gave us the advantage. If look at the M16, and even the M14 (how the M14 was, not is) you'll see that we were idiots even then, as well, all a direct result of thinking that our M1 was the best just becuase it mass issued...

Well, actually, the M1 has like, little recoil problems. The reason for this is that it's large and heavy. Either it's big or it has recoil problem. It's usually not both.

Felt Recoil on an M1 is roughly under 20 joules per shot, which, isn't such a big deal. About the same as an average Mauser type gun.

The reason why a Mauser would be more accurate though, is becuase it would have used the full fledged sniper/machine gun round variant, which by far had the highest ballistic coefficient (the least amount of drop and a flat trajectory, I.E. easier to point and shoot without doing complicated mathematics) and was typically the most accurate, given all the research they did before the war started. Hitler also believed in very accurate far range rifles, used in Trench Warfare, which he tried to equip his troops with.

It's been noted as being "Beautifully crafted" and everything down to the end shape of the bullet helped it to achieve great accuracy and good aerodynamic performance, resulting in a low amount of drag.

And to be honest, in all truthfulness, with it's 12 gram round compared to the 9.5 gram rounds, the Mauser probably would have had more recoil, as a result of more inertia. If you compare the recoil of a 9mm to the recoil of a 5.7mm, the 9mm has 30% more recoil than the 5.7mm, despite having the same energy level. The reason for this is in the mass, or inertia of the round- 9mm rounds are typically 7.5 grams while 5.7mm are typically 2 grams. While they both have basically the same amount of energy, about 500 joules, the massive mass difference results in a much lower momentum and raw inertia (mass), inertia being "The measure of matter's ability to resist change or acceleration", or basically how hard it is to stop or start something. The bullet it harder to stop with more raw inertia, and therefore you have to apply more force for the backwards force (everything action has an equal and opposite reaction) and so something, with the same amount of energy, but different levels of mass, have different recoil.

Although this would be relatively minor considering the percentages. I'm also in favor of heavier bullets.
xp

Sounds cool whee

lol...

We do if your wrong. whee

If your trying to pretend to teach facts that are absolutely wrong...

Then...

I mean it's like trying to tell people that we used to be able to fly at will without machines 150,000 years ago but we lost that ability due to the electromagnetic interference from the sun being relayed off the moon.

When you get your history wrong you get the WORLD wrong.

And that's a bad thing. whee